Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NY is tough. I've seen many people choose Rochester, which is the State's second largest city after NYC. But I'd choose Syracuse or even Buffalo over Rochester.
Actually, Buffalo is the second biggest city and metro in NYS, but Rochester is very close in terms of metro population and may have a larger GDP.
To be fair Houston and Dallas hijacked the thread a couple pages back.
Don't worry...eventually reality will set in, and San Franciscans will accept being numero dos.
Something which Chicago used to proudly proclaim.back in the day as America's Second City. I guess "California's Second City" doesn't have a nice ring to it for San Franciscans. Aha
I was rather enjoying seeing another states top metro's tear into each other like that, it's nice to know that the Hou vs Dal argument is actually more a part of human nature rather than just a Texas thing...lol
The vitriol between LA and SF is actually a bit understandable. The two cities are so completely different, that totally different sets of people live in either. It impacts political ideas and persuasions as well. Both cities are filled with liberals, but two completely different types of liberals.
The CA drought is widely publicized. The latest reports out are that NorCal, and particularly SF are doing wayyy more than their fair share to save and conserve water whereas LA actually used more water in March YoY and is heading in the opposite direction. It's things like that that get under the skin of the San Francisco set and add to the overall negative opinion of SoCal.
I can tell you from my perspective, flying into LAX, Burbank, or OC is the pits, particularly LAX. It's the little things. That is probably my least favorite airport in the country, and yet it is the flagship airport for the country's 2nd largest city! I'd consider it an overall embarrassment. And yes, the smog when you fly in is still very very visible, and the cityscape is always interesting and huge, but I can see where liberal city types up in SF are literally offended that there is a city built like LA, period, let alone where it is built.
I don't know why Houston and Dallas hate each other - perhaps it's more of a rivalry thing since they are very close in size, scope, and influence and have the same overall upbringing. I am absolutely positive it's not a "rivalry" thing between LA and SF, but literally a one-way hatred of LA by SF for reasons of principle (and it doesn't help that SF is probably the "smartest" and nerdiest city and LA possibly one of the most vapid - that kind of opposing personal touch doesn't help relations).
One thing is true, though, and that is that LA people know how to throw better parties and have a better time than SF people, and I think SF people (quite a few of which are from SoCal originally), acknowledge that and go down to LA, SD, Carlsbad, Palm Springs, etc etc to party/vacation.
I don't think San Franciscans inherently view themselves as living in the state's #2 city. I think if they could have their way, they'd be in a separate state called North California. LA would still be 5-6 hours south on the 5 or 1 hour by flight and there would still be the same sort of relationship that exists now, but there would be a line of demarcation and a legal separation making it clear that LA is SoCal and SF is NorCal and they are two complementary but separate things/states/ideas/people.
The only other state where this total psychological and clear separation (without legal separation) that I can think of that exists like this is Florida - North and South FL are very very different, and Central Florida is the glue that binds them. California doesn't have an equivalent "Central FL" - it's either north or south and a vastness in between.
The vitriol between LA and SF is actually a bit understandable. The two cities are so completely different, that totally different sets of people live in either. It impacts political ideas and persuasions as well. Both cities are filled with liberals, but two completely different types of liberals.
The CA drought is widely publicized. The latest reports out are that NorCal, and particularly SF are doing wayyy more than their fair share to save and conserve water whereas LA actually used more water in March YoY and is heading in the opposite direction. It's things like that that get under the skin of the San Francisco set and add to the overall negative opinion of SoCal.
I can tell you from my perspective, flying into LAX, Burbank, or OC is the pits, particularly LAX. It's the little things. That is probably my least favorite airport in the country, and yet it is the flagship airport for the country's 2nd largest city! I'd consider it an overall embarrassment. And yes, the smog when you fly in is still very very visible, and the cityscape is always interesting and huge, but I can see where liberal city types up in SF are literally offended that there is a city built like LA, period, let alone where it is built.
I don't know why Houston and Dallas hate each other - perhaps it's more of a rivalry thing since they are very close in size, scope, and influence and have the same overall upbringing. I am absolutely positive it's not a "rivalry" thing between LA and SF, but literally a one-way hatred of LA by SF for reasons of principle (and it doesn't help that SF is probably the "smartest" and nerdiest city and LA possibly one of the most vapid - that kind of opposing personal touch doesn't help relations).
One thing is true, though, and that is that LA people know how to throw better parties and have a better time than SF people, and I think SF people (quite a few of which are from SoCal originally), acknowledge that and go down to LA, SD, Carlsbad, Palm Springs, etc etc to party/vacation.
I don't think San Franciscans inherently view themselves as living in the state's #2 city. I think if they could have their way, they'd be in a separate state called North California. LA would still be 5-6 hours south on the 5 or 1 hour by flight and there would still be the same sort of relationship that exists now, but there would be a line of demarcation and a legal separation making it clear that LA is SoCal and SF is NorCal and they are two complementary but separate things/states/ideas/people.
The only other state where this total psychological and clear separation (without legal separation) that I can think of that exists like this is Florida - North and South FL are very very different, and Central Florida is the glue that binds them. California doesn't have an equivalent "Central FL" - it's either north or south and a vastness in between.
That vastness is the agriculture engine that is consuming most of our water and that politicians are doing little to address while they pin down water waste in the citizenry.
Otherwise I somewhat agree with you. Except that if San Franciscans were that intelligent they would understand why LA is the eay it is, and we are far from vapid. LA is the creative capital of America and creativity takes brains, believe it or not. It is one of the corner stones of civilization.
The vitriol between LA and SF is actually a bit understandable. The two cities are so completely different, that totally different sets of people live in either. It impacts political ideas and persuasions as well. Both cities are filled with liberals, but two completely different types of liberals.
The CA drought is widely publicized. The latest reports out are that NorCal, and particularly SF are doing wayyy more than their fair share to save and conserve water whereas LA actually used more water in March YoY and is heading in the opposite direction. It's things like that that get under the skin of the San Francisco set and add to the overall negative opinion of SoCal.
I can tell you from my perspective, flying into LAX, Burbank, or OC is the pits, particularly LAX. It's the little things. That is probably my least favorite airport in the country, and yet it is the flagship airport for the country's 2nd largest city! I'd consider it an overall embarrassment. And yes, the smog when you fly in is still very very visible, and the cityscape is always interesting and huge, but I can see where liberal city types up in SF are literally offended that there is a city built like LA, period, let alone where it is built.
I don't know why Houston and Dallas hate each other - perhaps it's more of a rivalry thing since they are very close in size, scope, and influence and have the same overall upbringing. I am absolutely positive it's not a "rivalry" thing between LA and SF, but literally a one-way hatred of LA by SF for reasons of principle (and it doesn't help that SF is probably the "smartest" and nerdiest city and LA possibly one of the most vapid - that kind of opposing personal touch doesn't help relations).
One thing is true, though, and that is that LA people know how to throw better parties and have a better time than SF people, and I think SF people (quite a few of which are from SoCal originally), acknowledge that and go down to LA, SD, Carlsbad, Palm Springs, etc etc to party/vacation.
I don't think San Franciscans inherently view themselves as living in the state's #2 city. I think if they could have their way, they'd be in a separate state called North California. LA would still be 5-6 hours south on the 5 or 1 hour by flight and there would still be the same sort of relationship that exists now, but there would be a line of demarcation and a legal separation making it clear that LA is SoCal and SF is NorCal and they are two complementary but separate things/states/ideas/people.
The only other state where this total psychological and clear separation (without legal separation) that I can think of that exists like this is Florida - North and South FL are very very different, and Central Florida is the glue that binds them. California doesn't have an equivalent "Central FL" - it's either north or south and a vastness in between.
Excellent analysis. To me The LA/SF rivalry is the mirror image of the Hou/Dall rivalry. Both Cali metros are liberal but as you say they are different types of liberalism, SF being a more social type of liberalism while LA is a more libertarian type of liberalism which is diametrically opposite of Texas where Dallas is a more socially conservative metro and Houston is the more libertarian conservative metro. The social aspects of SF and Dallas's brand of politics makes them more socially cohesive with stricter political orthodoxies whereas Hou and La are more every man for themselves types that promote more of a live and let live philosophy.
You are absolutely right about Florida being the most politically divided state as evidenced by some of their elections, but Florida doesn't have any city that has any real business or economic gravitas other than tourism so I don't think they step on each others feet the way cities in other states do.
This is a fun topic. I'll tackle the ones I think are more debatable (and for the record, I'm not treating potential second cities as candidates if they're in the same metro area):
Florida: (1) Miami and (2)...probably Orlando. Tampa may be a little larger, not sure, but Orlando's international reputation due to Disney, etc. I think takes the title. Tampa and Jacksonville could probably take 3 and 4.
Texas: This is the hardest one. DFW or Houston could fairly take number 1. I'll give the slight edge to Dallas, but it's just a hunch.
Ohio: I think Cleveland is 1, and 2 is probably Cincy...but Columbus could make a strong case for #2.
Virginia: Is #1 Richmond, Hampton Roads, or NoVA? I'm going with NoVA/Arlington as 1, Richmond as 2, and Hampton Roads as 3.
Missouri: St. Louis or KC? I'm going St. Louis as 1, KC as 2.
So besides Texas and California, are there any other states people feel like discussing? Still 48 states left...
I did think the Oklahoma debate was pretty interesting. Although I have always thought of OKC as the number 1 in OK and Tulsa the "second city" and still do. The poster representing Tulsa seemed to make the same argument that Austin makes as to why it is the better city in the state and may have made some excellent points. But being a live music capital or being more scenic doesn't in and of itself elevate a city in importance.....
I've already done Minnesota, but I'll go with the bordering states. I think most of them are non-controversial.
Second Cities:
Wisconsin--Madison
Iowa--Cedar Rapids
North Dakota--Bismark
South Dakota--Rapid City
Canadian bonuses:
Manitoba--Brandon
Ontario--Ottawa
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
